Asking for a friend :)
> Am running LMS on Raspberry Pi 4 Raspian OS, whenever I start it up, the
> date/time showing on the SqueezeBox Touch is the time when the LMS was
> shutdown, its as though the LMS service is starting before the Pi has
> synced its time. Is it possible to delay starting u
Man in a van wrote:
> Asking for a friend :)
>
> ...
>
> Do the panel think there is any other way to solve the problem
> :confused:
>
> Thanks
>
> ronnie
Since the Touch and the NAS are left on all the time, why not leave the
Pi on, too?
LMS 8 nightly running on Raspberry Pi OS. Mostly
Man in a van wrote:
> Asking for a friend :)
>
>
>
> The pi syncs its time at start up.
>
> The problem can be solved by using a restart LMS bash script at boot
> (either by cronjob or autostart).
>
> The Touch can be restarted by a short press of the reset button on the
> back (not in fav
RobbH wrote:
> Since the Touch and the NAS are left on all the time, why not leave the
> Pi on, too?
slartibartfast wrote:
> In raspi-config you can "wait for network on boot" or similar. Would
> that help?
Sorry that I did not give a more expansive thread opener, I was a bit
pushed for time
Man in a van wrote:
>
> Do the panel think there is any other way to solve the problem
> :confused:
>
How to start service after system time has been synchronized:
https://sleeplessbeastie.eu/2020/03/02/how-to-start-service-after-the-system-time-has-been-synchronized/
I've not tried it.
-
mrw wrote:
> How to start service after system time has been synchronized:
>
> https://sleeplessbeastie.eu/2020/03/02/how-to-start-service-after-the-system-time-has-been-synchronized/
>
> I've not tried it.
Thanks, that should make my head ache :)
I'll try tomorrow
ronnie
--
Man in a van wrote:
> Thanks, that should make my head ache :)
As I understand it:
Enable the -systemd-time-wait-sync- service.
Code:
sudo systemctl enable systemd-time-wait-sync
Drop an appropriate systemd snippet under the LMS service, ea
Man in a van wrote:
>
>
> pCP was rejected, Network wait is enabled, and as stated in the opening
> post, it is desired to power down the pi in between usage.
>
> ronnie
Sorry! I did see that leaving the Pi powered down when not in use was
the current practice, but did not understand
RobbH wrote:
> Sorry! I did see that leaving the Pi powered down when not in use was
> the current practice, but did not understand that continuing to do that
> was necessarily a goal. That was my failure to think it through.
> Obviously, if the solution were that simple, you would have already